^^^ nail on head !
shocking the NFU can’t even get as many followers as they have employees never mind membership !
verges on negligent use of farmers money but some just can’t see it and keep funding the gravy train
Last edited:
BBC Green Peter!
- Thread starter jondear
- Start date
^^^ nail on head !
shocking the NFU can’t even get as many followers as they have employees never mind membership !
verges on negligent use of farmers money but some just can’t see it and keep funding the gravy train
Rod Dumbreck
Member
and too many adults don't want to be held responsible for their children
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Some 'crime' certainly does have a relation to or root in the mental health of those carrying it out; yet you'll note that as soon as there is a definite diagnosis of a sufficiently serious psychiatric medical condition, the perpetrator ceases to be a criminal, i.e. there can be no conviction if mental capacity is not present.
But it's very, very wide of the mark to claim it as being any more than a very small number of cases in which that is so. There has been a huge over-diagnosis of 'conditions' in recent years, something I'm pleased to write the Judges now question very closely. Almost any character trait can be 'diagnosed', e.g. liking things to be very tidy or, conversely, not caring at all about things being tidy.
I, and others in Court, have questioned the psych brigade about this (psychologists are by far the worst). My particular favourite line of questioning is: you say Mr X has such and such a condition - YES - you say that he has to 'confront' this and admit to it, therein explicitly agreeing that he does - YES - yet if he does not agree he is in 'denial' and so confirming your view - YES.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that sometimes, and often involves a verbal trip around the houses, length of trip depending on how bright they are; but the conclusion is always the same, i.e. I say you're a nutter, if you agree with me you are admitting as much, if you disagree with me you are denying the reality of your situation and are still a nutter.
Claims of mental-illness are a huge get-out in the CJS, accepting it in its entirety would mean there are no 'crimes', only actions, which would be absurd. If you want / need to prove to yourself that these people do know right from wrong, wrong them and see what it gets you.
As for your last assertion, that's another claim often thrown about, back it up, won't you...?
'Beating people with a stick' is a metaphor if you're referring to their being labelled as woke.
(which you is)I've tried to get a response to that point but he won't, because it reveals the weakness of his case...
Which goes to demonstrate that that its use, sparingly, is highly effective. Nobody I know of is advocating 'beating' children regularly as a matter of course, but most I know of think that reserving the option for rare times is the right thing.
When you put it like that it is a bit pathetic isn't it.
It really is - not even those on the payroll feel the account is relevant enough to follow !
They just do not understand social media, it clearly scare them witless and they just don't know how to deal with it .................. I would suggest its long-overdue they employed a few people that did, they have a LOT of money, they can hire the best
Some 'crime' certainly does have a relation to or root in the mental health of those carrying it out; yet you'll note that as soon as there is a definite diagnosis of a sufficiently serious psychiatric medical condition, the perpetrator ceases to be a criminal, i.e. there can be no conviction if mental capacity is not present.
But it's very, very wide of the mark to claim it as being any more than a very small number of cases in which that is so. There has been a huge over-diagnosis of 'conditions' in recent years, something I'm pleased to write the Judges now question very closely. Almost any character trait can be 'diagnosed', e.g. liking things to be very tidy or, conversely, not caring at all about things being tidy.
I, and others in Court, have questioned the psych brigade about this (psychologists are by far the worst). My particular favourite line of questioning is: you say Mr X has such and such a condition - YES - you say that he has to 'confront' this and admit to it, therein explicitly agreeing that he does - YES - yet if he does not agree he is in 'denial' and so confirming your view - YES.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that sometimes, and often involves a verbal trip around the houses, length of trip depending on how bright they are; but the conclusion is always the same, i.e. I say you're a nutter, if you agree with me you are admitting as much, if you disagree with me you are denying the reality of your situation and are still a nutter.
Claims of mental-illness are a huge get-out in the CJS, accepting it in its entirety would mean there are no 'crimes', only actions, which would be absurd. If you want / need to prove to yourself that these people do know right from wrong, wrong them and see what it gets you.
As for your last assertion, that's another claim often thrown about, back it up, won't you...?
'Beating people with a stick' is a metaphor if you're referring to their being labelled as woke.
I've tried to get a response to that point but he won't, because it reveals the weakness of his case...
Which goes to demonstrate that that its use, sparingly, is highly effective. Nobody I know of is advocating 'beating' children regularly as a matter of course, but most I know of think that reserving the option for rare times is the right thing.
in the past decade or 2 there have been serious research and breakthroughs in how mental health care is seen, it is or was largely neglected, Mental health issues, socio-economic situation etc. all intertwine and cause the existance of criminality ranging from much greater understanding of the autism spectrum to how things like anger issues are caused.
There was the same shitty teenagers 40 years ago as there are now in proportion to the population, we just have social media and the internet sticking it in our faces.
Quite dissapointing that Judges are starting to just write off "conditions", the autism spectrum for example has a huge impact on people.